|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|CANEXUS CHEMICALS CANADA, L.P. V. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY|
|DECISION DENIED BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY'S (BNSF) MOTION IN THIS THREE-BENCHMARK RATE CASE TO ADD ONLY BNSF'S 2011 TRAFFIC TAPE DATA (THROUGH THE THIRD QUARTER) TO THE AVAILABLE DATA THE PARTIES MAY USE TO INTRODUCE COMPARISON GROUP EVIDENCE.|
| 23 KB|
|Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 23 Seconds|
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.
|Full Text of Decision|
42162 SERVICE DATE – FEBRUARY 8, 2012
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Docket No. NOR 42132
CANEXUS CHEMICALS CANADA, L.P.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
Digest: This decision denies BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF) motion in this Three-Benchmark rate case to add only BNSF’s 2011 traffic tape data (through the third quarter) to the available data the parties may use to introduce comparison group evidence.
Decided: February 8, 2012
By a complaint filed on November 14, 2011, Canexus Chemicals Canada, L.P. (Canexus) challenges the reasonableness of rates charged by BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) for the transportation of chlorine from: (1) North Vancouver, B.C., to Glendale, Ariz.; and (2) North Vancouver, B.C., to Albuquerque, N.M. Canexus seeks relief pursuant to the simplified procedures set forth in Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No.1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007). Canexus has elected to utilize the Three-Benchmark method, under which the total available rate relief is limited to $1 million over a 5-year period. BNSF filed its answer to the complaint on December 5, 2011.
On December 14, 2011, BNSF filed the subject motion, in which it seeks permission to add only BNSF’s 2011 traffic tape data (through the third quarter) to the available data for the parties to introduce comparison group evidence regarding toxic-by-inhalation movements. BNSF filed a request for expedited consideration of its motion on December 16, 2011. Canexus filed in opposition to BNSF’s request for expedited consideration on December 19, 2011, and then filed its reply in opposition to BNSF’s motion on January 3, 2012.
BNSF’s motion will be denied. A discussion of the merits of BNSF’s motion will be included in a subsequent decision on the merits.
It is ordered:
1. BNSF’s motion is denied.
2. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Begeman.
 The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. Policy Statement on Plain Language Digests in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).